The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2011 08-11 PCP PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AUGUST 11, 2011 REGULAR SESSION 1. Call to Order: 7:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes — July 14, 2011 4. Chairperson's Explanation The Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. 5. Carlein Cloutier — 5731 Camden Ave N Planning App. No. 2011 -017 Variance application to allow more than two accessory structures 6. Discussion Items 7. Other Business 8. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION JULY 14, 2011 CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Sean Rahn at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Chair Sean Rahn, Commissioners Kara Kuykendall, Rachel Morey, Michael Parks, and Stephen Schonning were present. Also present were Councilmember Carol Kleven, Secretary to the Planning Commission Tim Benetti, Director of Business & Development Gary Eitel, and Planning Commission Recording Secretary Rebecca Crass. Stan Leino was absent and excused. Carlos Morgan was absent and unexcused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — JUNE 16, 2011 There was a motion by Commissioner Parks, seconded by Commissioner Kuykendall, to approve the minutes of the June 16, 2011 meeting as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. CHAIR'S EXPLANATION Chair Sean Rahn explained the Planning Commission's role as an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. APPLICATION NO. 2011 -015 — SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO. Chair Rahn introduced Application No. 2011 -015, a request from Sears Roebuck and Co. for a minor amendment to the 1999 Brookdale Mall Planned Unit Development (PUD). Sears is requesting the City consider and approve the similar development standards granted to Gatlin Development Company under the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development (SCC -PUD) applications. Mr. Benetti presented the staff report and commented on the standards memorialized in City Council Resolution 2011 -85 and in the final Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions agreement between the City and Gatlin Development Company. He also pointed out some additional adjustments requested by the applicant that were not approved under the 1999 PUD /Rezoning as follows: • Allow a reduction in the 15 ft. parking setback and 35 ft. building setback along Bass Lake Road to offset the dedication of additional right of way for the trail improvements to replace the current trail easements. • Allow 10 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of restaurant area. Allow a 52.5 ft wide parking dimension for 60 degree parking. 7 -14 -11 Page 1 • Allow two Town Center identification signs (one additional) along Bass Lake Road and i one additional Town Center identification sign on Xerxes Avenue. • Allow a zero foot (0') lot line setback at the northeast corner of the Sears building and adjacent to the patio /plaza space. Mr. Benetti presented photos to the Commission which demonstrated the layout of the Sears property indicating where trails, landscaping, buffers and parking areas are located. He pointed out that staff has asked Sears to connect the sidewalk along Xerxes to the Regional Trail that will will involve a 15 ft. dedication similar to that granted to Gatlin. By doing so, the city would allow a reduction in the 15 ft. parking setback. Mr. Benetti also stated that the City would allow 10 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. as granted to Gatlin and that the City would prefer that Sears utilize the 56 ft. standard and allow a 52.5 ft. dimension for 60 degree parking provided the applicant provide a viable parking layout as part of a major plan amendment. Mr. Benetti further explained that the city acknowledges this zero line setback could be allowed if proper dedication of right -of -ways and easements are executed. Mr. Benetti further explained that on May 23, 2011 the City Council approved the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing PUD for the Brookdale properties with the exception of the Sears property and Holiday store, and accepted the modifications and variations to certain zoning standards noted previously. Sears was not part of this 2011 PUD application, and its property is not subject to the Declarations and Covenants of the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD Agreement. PUBLIC HEARING — APPLICATION NO. 2011-015 There was a motion by Commissioner Kuykendall, seconded by Commissioner Morey, to open the public hearing on Application No. 2011 -015, at p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Rahn called for comments from the public. Mr. Tom Radio, representing Sears, stated that his concerns are indicated in his memo and he explained to the Commission requested changes to the proposed Planning Commission Resolution. He described the changes that he requested regarding the city's recommendations. Commissioner Kuykendall asked Staff why the application, if approved, constitutes a major plan amendment rather than a minor amendment. Mr. Benetti explained that based on the requests made by the applicant, the proposed plan is a departure from the zoning standards typically allowed which constitutes a major plan amendment requiring a public hearing. Commissioner Parks asked the applicant what their major concern is regarding the zero line setback. Mr. Radio stated that they are trying to reserve the options available to Sears for future expansion or remodeling. Mr. Benetti explained that Sears currently has a zero lot line setback with the connection to the mall. Mr. Benetti stated that once the mall is demolished, a plan amendment would be required 7 -14 -11 Page 2 to allow Sears to have a zero lot line setback. He added that the zoning ordinance requires a 10 ft. setback from property lines. Mr. Radio explained that Sears would like to hold on to some flexibility to be able to expand their building to the property line should the need arise. Commissioner Parks asked why Sears is not willing to continue with the trails. Mr. Radio responded that Sears is not willing to pay the cost for construction of the trails. Mr. Eitel stated that staff would prefer to see the dedication of right -of -ways for the trails take place now with this application rather than later to enable the trails to be completed. He added that if Sears were willing to allow the dedication of right -of -ways the City may be able to provide some funding for completion of the trail on the Sears property. Mr. Radio stated that by allowing the right -of -way dedication, which would actually be a conveyance of property, they would hope to be granted a zero lot line setback. Mr. Benetti explained that with a right -of -way dedication, the Sear's lot line is virtually changed. Chair Rahn asked for clarification regarding the language in the resolution being requested by the applicant. Mr. Eitel explained that the City would like all these matters to be cleared up now by adopting the resolution proposed by staff as part of the development of Shingle Creek Crossing. Mr. Parks asked the applicant how they feel about the current parking on the site. Mr. Radio responded that he has no background information regarding how Sears feels about that and he would need to do some research to respond to the question. Chair Rahn asked Staff how they feel regarding the conditions on the resolution referenced by the City Engineer. Mr. Eitel responded the conditions were added to the resolution at the request of the City Engineer. Chair Rahn stated that he thought the Engineer's conditions seems rather excessive. Mark Allen, 6036 Halifax Place, business owner and resident in Brooklyn Center, asked about clarification of the parking standards. He stated that he is in the landscaping and snow removal business and has a concern with smaller parking spaces when it comes time to remove snow since it creates a problem with snow removal and storage on site. No other persons from the public appeared before the Commission during the public hearing on Application No. 2011 -015. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING There was a motion by Commissioner Kuykendall, seconded by Commissioner Parks, to close the public hearing on Application No. 2011 -015, at 7:59 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. The Chair called for further discussion or questions from the Commissioners. 7 -14 -11 Page 3 There was further discussion among the Commissioners regarding the application. Commissioner Kuykendall and Morey asked if a recommendation would be made tonight or if the application should be tabled to allow staff adequate time to incorporate changes to the resolution. Mr. Benetti explained that the Commission could make a recommendation tonight following review of the Resolution, or the application could be tabled and brought before the Planning Commission again on July 28, 2011 for review and recommendation. Mr. Radio stated that he is in agreement with the Application being tabled and reviewed at the next meeting. It was the consensus of Staff and the Commission to bring the Application and Resolution for approval before the Commission at the July 28, 2011 meeting. Commissioner Schonning stated that he loves Sears but is disappointed that Sears has not been a better member of the community and not stepped forward to be part of this proposed development. ACTION TO RECOMMEND TABLING OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2011-015 There was a motion by Commissioner Kuykendall, seconded by Commissioner Schonning, to table Planning Commission Application No. 2011 -015. Voting in favor: Chair Rahn, Commissioners Kuykendall, Morey, Parks, and Schonning. And the following voted against the same: None The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission will reconsider this application at its July 28, 2011meeting. APPLICATION NO 2011 -016 — LOREN VAN DER SLIK (GATLIN DEVELOPMENT CO) Chair Rahn introduced Application No. 2011 -016, a request from Loren Van Der Slik for Gatlin Development Company, Inc., for PUD Amendment approval to the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development. Mr. Benetti presented the staff report and explained that the proposed amendment consists of the following: • The physical separation of the existing retail mall /food court building from the existing Sears retail store building; • The renovation/conversion of the interior mall (common area) into retail space, which expands the net leasable retail area from 123,242 sq. ft. to 150,591 sq. ft.; • The elimination of proposed Building N from the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing PUD plan; 7 -14 -11 Page 4 • The expansion of the central parking area on Lot 2, Block 1 (Building N lot) which adds 103 parking stalls to serve the additional retail of the Food Court building; • The addition of a 6,000 sq. ft. commercial pad site with 30 parking stalls labeled as Building R, located at the southeast corner of Xerxes Avenue /56 Avenue entrance, along with a new 0.71 acre lot. Mr. Benetti stated that as part of ongoing negotiations with Sears, Gatlin has submitted this amendment to reflect changes to the approved Shingle Creek Crossing plan, which exceeds the threshold of a minor amendment. He pointed out the changes proposed to the previously approved PUD. Mr. Benetti further stated that following the scheduled public hearing, it is staff's recommendation that this item be tabled until July 28 or August 11, 2011. This will allow for further review by staff with the applicant regarding concerns and issues raised in this report. PUBLIC HEARING — APPLICATION NO. 2011-015 There was a motion by Commissioner Morey, seconded by Commissioner Schonning, to open the public hearing on Application No. 2011 -015, at p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Rahn called for comments from the public. Mr. Frank Gatlin, stated that he is happy to be here and is excited to see work on the site. He shared that the latest change to the plan is a result of negotiations with Sears to address the loading docks and other areas. He also shared that he has many potential tenants that are excited to be part of the development. He added that he understands that the application will be tabled and that they will meet back with staff to redefine more of the details taking place on the plans. Mr. Gatlin explained that they are dealing with some tenants that will potentially occupy the former Barnes and Noble space and pointed out how they are proposing to allow access and visibility for those tenants in that space. He added that they are leaving the loading dock where it is currently located until they have those tenants locked in. Mr. Gatlin explained the separation being created between Sears and the existing Barnes and Noble building will create a driveway, sidewalk landscaped area that will encourage consumers to arrive to the main entrance of the development while also allowing access to the storefront facing Xerxes Avenue. He stated that they will continue to work with staff on the design of this area since it is an important feature to relieve parking on the Walmart side of the development. Commissioner Kuykendall asked what happened to the trees that were on the previous plan. Mr. Will Matzek stated that they had to realign that side of the building and as tenants are identified, they will take a close look at how the landscaping will be laid out. Mr. Matzek further stated that they reverted back to the existing layout on that side of the site since the loading docks will not be moved and the parking spaces were needed. He added that until tenants are identified, they are not exactly sure how the final layout will be. 7 -14 -11 Page 5 Chair Rahn stated that he feels the one -way drive between Sears and the existing Barnes and Noble seems awkward. He added that he would prefer to see a two way drive area which would give more flexibility to the area. Councilmember Kleven stated that she would rather see a two way drive area between the buildings. She added that she will access the site off Xerxes Avenue and if the drive area between the buildings were a one way, she would be inclined to go the wrong way down a one way to get to her destination. Commissioner Parks stated that the entrance to Barnes and Noble is a good entrance and whoever occupies that building will have good visibility and should be successful. Mr. Gatlin stated that the location of the entrance will be tenant driven based on who occupies that site and what their preference is. No other persons from the public appeared before the Commission during the public hearing on Application No. 2011 -015. I CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING There was a motion by Commissioner Kuykendall, seconded by Commissioner Morey, to close the public hearing on Application No. 2011 -015, at 9:09 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. The Chair called for further discussion or questions from the Commissioners. ACTION TO RECOMMEND TABLING OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2011-016 There was a motion by Commissioner Kuykendall, seconded by Commissioner Morey, to table Planning Commission Application No. 2011 -016. Voting in favor: Chair Rahn, Commissioners Kuykendall, Morey, Parks, and Schonning. And the following voted against the same: None The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission will consider the application at its July 28, 2011 meeting. OTHER BUSINESS: - Government Training Services (GTS) Event Mr. Benetti informed the Commission of the opportunity to attend a workshop sponsored by the City of Brooklyn Park on July 27, 2011 titled, "Your Role as Planning Commission Member ". He encouraged Commission members to attend and asked the Commission to notify staff by July 15, 2011 if they would like to be registered for the workshop. 7 -14 -11 Page 6 ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Morey, seconded by Commissioner Kuykendall, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Chair Recorded and transcribed by: Rebecca Crass Recording Secretary 7 -14 -11 Page 7 Application Filed on July 25, 2011 City Council Action Should Be Taken By September 23, 2011 (60 Days) Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 2011 -017 Applicant: Carlein Cloutier Owner: Debra New Location: 5731 Camden Avenue N. Request: Variance to City Zoning Code Section 35 -530 to Allow More Than Two (2) Accessory Structures in the R1 Zone INTRODUCTION The applicant, Ms. Carlein Cloutier is requesting a variance from Section 35 -530 of the city's zoning ordinance to allow the continuation of two accessory structures in the rear yard of a single - family residential dwelling, located in the R -1 One Family Dwelling district. Subpara. 5 of said section states: "No more than two accessory buildings shall be permitted on any one residential premises." The two structures measure 10' x 14' (140 sf.) and 12' x 20' (240 sf.) respectively. An aerial map attached to this report illustrates the sizes and approximate location of the two sheds. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices to surrounding property owners have been sent. The Applicant has submitted for review and consideration a petition signed by a number of neighboring and community property owners supporting their variance request. BACKGROUND The subject property in question is located in the R -1 Zone and is surrounded by other single family homes. The above cited section of the Zoning Ordinance allows detached or attached accessory buildings, such as garages and/or carports, along with utility or storage sheds provided the total ground coverage of all accessory building(s) does not exceed the ground coverage of the principal dwelling; and that no more than two accessory structures are permitted on any one residential premise. In this case, the footprint (ground coverage) of the dwelling is 975 sf. The existing attached garage is 528 sf., which leaves up to 447 sf. for additional accessory space. As a result of a site investigation, the property owner was given notice by the City's Code Enforcement Division a number of weeks ago indicating her property was in violation of City Code 35 -530 due to the excess number of sheds on the property. The investigation and requested action stated they needed to remove one of the accessory buildings to be compliant with Code. The owner /applicant appeared before the City Council at the May 23, 2011 meeting (open forum) requesting a stay on the code enforcement action and a "grandfathered right" determination by the Council. The Council directed city staff to look into the matter, whereby a letter was prepared by staff and mailed to Ms. Cloutier and Ms. New, dated July 5, 2011 (included herein), indicating the grandfathered right is not applicable. The Applicant appeared Cloutier Variance Page 1 of 5 8 -11 -11 again before the City Council at the July 11, 2001 meeting, informing them of the recent letter and grandfathering determination, and about the variance process. Upon advisement of the City Attorney, Ms. Cloutier was directed to contact city staff and make application for variance. City planning staff met with Ms. Cloutier and Ms. New and advised them of the variance process and this application was filed shortly thereafter. At this time, the Applicant/Owner has not submitted a narrative justifying their need or hardship in this case, only the petition. They have communicated to planning staff that their need for two extra sheds is strictly personal; especially their desire to store excess equipment, furniture and personal belongings of other family members. The Applicants further indicate in their application that the smaller shed was built in 1978 and the larger shed was built in 1996 (note: city records indicate the shed was actually finalized in 1995). Ms. New purchased the property in 1998 — after the two sheds were built. Residential homeowners installing more than the allowable sheds in their yards is an occasional occurrence and common mistake the City is called to investigate and remediate by means of code enforcement action. State Building Code allows homeowners to install utility sheds up to 120 sf. (10 x 12') without any permit. The City does its best to police or inform the general public of these rules; but at times, as in this case, occurrences do slip past our review or inspections. It appears the previous homeowner neglected to indicate the smaller, existing shed on his property when he applied for the building permit to construct the larger 12' x 20 building (refer to the attached 1994 building permit application and site plan). This permit was issued on the understanding only one shed would occupy this rear yard. Staff was unable to ascertain if [in 1995] the city inspector noticed the smaller shed at time of final inspection, or made any effort to notify the owner of any potential violation. Nevertheless, the action (or inaction) of the inspector in 1995 is moot and not relevant in this particular case. ANALYSIS City Code Section 35 -240 - Variances, provides the governing rules and standards in the review of variances. The section states the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, recommends and the City Council grants variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive to the individual property under consideration. A variance may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the Standards for Variances, contained in the Zoning Ordinances are met, which include the following: a) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the specific parcels of land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. b) The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought, and are not common, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Cloutier Variance Page 2 of 5 8 -11 -11 c) The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of this ordinance and has not been created by ormerl Navin an interest in the parcel o land. an persons resent o .� Y any presently Y .f Y g p d) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. The Planning Commission may or may not be aware, the Minnesota State Legislature recently passed a bill that significantly revamped the parameters or standards in which municipal governments can review and grant variances. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 2010, Section 462.357 Subdivision 6. Appeals and Adjustments the standards noted above have now been revised by eliminating the need to justify or prove a hardship in variances. The overarching standard or principle in the granting of variances is now based on a "reasonable" test or justification. The new law (abbreviated below) provides the following standards: Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means: a) that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance; b) the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and c) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. In consultation with the City Attorney, he advised planning staff that in order to be consistent with and compliant with State Law, the city should analyze or discern this variance case under these new rules and standards. The following is city planning staff's findings based on these above- referenced standards: ❖ that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance; The "reasonable" nature of this particular variance case is somewhat subjective. The most common need or request for accessory buildings is to store vehicles, bicycles, lawn and yard equipment, patio furniture, and other miscellaneous and personal belongings, while other needs range from workshops, garden sheds, greenhouses, or play houses; all of which are reasonable uses. Zoning Code does not distinguish what a homeowner can and cannot store, or how to use these accessory buildings provided any activity in these buildings is not illegal or does not conflict with Code. The Applicant has indicated to staff that their need is personal -- due in part to limited storage space in their existing Cloutier Variance Page 3 of 5 8 -11 -11 two -car garage and desire to keep and store personal property indoors. Staff will stipulate the need or desire to store equipment inside these two shed appears reasonable. However, the removal of one of the two sheds will not take away the overall use and enjoyment of the property, or removes the homeowner's right to have some additional storage area. The City's current ordinance is very specific in how many [buildings] and how much accessory space is allotted to all residential dwellings in single family and two - family zoned properties. In Staff s view, the current ordinance is reasonable and allows for fair and equal provisions to all homeowners wishing additional accessory storage space. ❖ the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner This variance request is clearly due to circumstances created by the previous landowner, and to some degree the City by not noticing or preventing the development of this site with two sheds during the building and inspection process back in 1995. Staff however, believes that the one additional shed does not provide enough special circumstances unique to the property; or the sheds are screened or difficult to view from adjacent properties (they are highly visible from adjacent properties), or supports any other special allowances under this variance case. Before completing the purchase of the home in 1998, the property owner should have investigated, been told or determined if the subject property was legal and conforming to current city codes. ❖ the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Staff does not believe that granting of this variance to allow the two sheds would (or will) alter the character of the locality. The sheds have been in place since 1978 and 1995 respectively, and they do not appear to affect any desired view sheds, watersheds, easements or pathways that would cause planning staff concerns. SUMMARY/RECOMMENDATION According to city records, the original accessory building provisions (Section 35 -310, Subdiv. 1b.3 and Section 35 -530) were adopted in 1981. They were created after review and denial of a variance to allow construction of a garage that would exceed 75 percent of the ground coverage of the principal building on a particular site. The City at that time determined that it was essential that no individual accessory building, or combination of accessory buildings, should exceed the ground coverage of the principal building or 1,000 sq. ft. in total area; and limited to two accessory buildings per lot. Since that time, this section has been amended by eliminating the 1,000 sf. limit, but all other provisions remain the same. Although staff would agree that in some cases it seems reasonable to have more storage space than normally allowed, the ordinance is specific in this regards and city staff would recommend the City holds to this standard for now. Cloutier Variance Page 4 of 5 8 -11 -11 In consultation with property owners contemplating variances, one consistent theme planners investigate or suggest before accepting a variance application are alternatives. In this case, the only logical alternative would be to remove one of the two sheds, and enlarge one of them to increase storage space. For instance, the 12' x 20' shed could be enlarged by an additional 207 s£ if the owner so chooses, which would easily make up for the loss of the smaller 140 s£ shed. The other alternative is to remove one of the two sheds, and eliminate the need for a variance. In summary, this application does not appear to meet the other (current) standards in review of variances, except however for the hardship to the current owners created by the previous homeowner. We do however believe the plight of the landowner or its circumstances were created by others or by inattentive action, which in turn forced the landowners to apply for this variance. As noted previously, the applicant's situation is not necessarily unique to his parcel of land. The new statute states "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan." To allow a homeowner additional sheds (even by means of a variance) is in direct conflict with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance and could potentially disrupt the overall harmony of the neighborhood. Other property owners throughout the City (and even in this neighborhood) have been subject to similar code enforcement action as well, and to allow this application to proceed under a variance potentially sets or establishes a wrong precedent. Planning Staff recommends denial be based on the grounds that the new standards for granting variances (under Mn SS 2010, Section 462.357, Subdivision 6), particularly the standards for reasonableness and uniqueness to this and all other properties throughout Brooklyn Center have not been met; and the variance is not in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. If the Commission wishes to explore other alternatives to the applicant's case, an ordinance amendment, rather than a variance, could be pursued in order to allow equal application of the ordinance on a city -wide basis. ATTACHMENTS • Aerial/Location Map • Photos of Sheds • Mn State Statute — 2010, Sect. 462.357 • 1995 -96 City of BC Building Permit • Code Enforcement Action Notice Letter (04/22/2011) • City's Response Letter (07/05/2011) • Neighborhood Petition w/ Map Cloutier Variance Page 5 of 5 8 -11 -11 LOGISMap Output Page 58TH AVE N i t 727 _.,. 707 701 I 12'x 20' ,. shed z 713 C 5730 tl 5731 v 3724 krg.? # snui�va. "8N t 10'x 14' 6725 shed t - =� I Application No. 2011 -017 Applicant: Carlein Cloutier Owner: Debra New Location: 5731 Camden Avenue N. Request: Variance to City Zoning Code Section 35 -530 to allow more than two (2) accessory structures in the R1 Zone http:// gis. logis. org/ LOGIS_ ArcIMS/ ims? ServiceName= bc_ lociismap _ovsde &ClientVersion =4.0 &Form = True &Encode= False[8 /5/2011 10:23:23 AM] pa N pr u. t .. u J w M w awr � t r e _ r a: n � w Y. ♦ x J {+ • 7ff *H .A w� * r , f r • y � R . 1• t , _ f . p may n-:.µ. �. rV. � .• ., v x . <K shed i } rJ y. f 1r • • � � rte, - i A ,1 r t • a* s Nw J A 4, jr ft Y t • + • k Ills rt' , t �" T � Y ♦5�. , \ ��• • �: � . ... M+ . a ♦ -+.s « Y+ « 4 6 i MW IL 0. � a a { r j 1 _d Minnesota Statutes 2010, section 462.357, subdivision 6. Appeals and adjustments. Appeals to the board of appeals and adjustments may be taken by any affected person upon compliance with any reasonable conditions imposed by the zoning ordinance. The board of appeals and adjustments has the following powers with respect to the zoning ordinance: (1) To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative officer in the enforcement of the zoning ordinance. (2) To hear requests for variances from the deFAGRStFated that sueh aetiens will be in keeping with the Sp i Fit and intent ef the eFdinanee. GG:44T requirements of the zoning ordinance including restrictions placed on nonconformities Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone &ha4 do not constitute an undue haFdS"`^ ` f. +ewes practical difficulties. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with the ordinance. The board of appeals and adjustments or the governing body as the case may be, may not permit as a variance any use that is not peFFAi tee allowed under the zonin ordinance for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or governing body as the case may be, may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one family dwelling as a two family dwelling. The board or governing body as the case may be may impose conditions in the granting of variances A condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. BROOKLYN CENTER PLANNING AND INSPECTION DEPARTMENT 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY, MN 55430 -2199 PHONE (612) 569 -3344 FAX (612) 569 -3494 :<:::< <: >:>:: { BUILDING L PERMIT APPLICATION SITE LOCATION Z9 V4 /V (J NUMBER STREET SUITE /UNIT NO. ZIP CODE .:. :,•.. :i;`iii: `f.:: is \ +� . /:.t.•. ..;iif. ...;:c < <.>:::::: ., : <:r:«•.:. �.: :. �:: : <r:. :. :!�f / :5' :: f. ..... /l+rfl. <. .. -. � � : .. .�`. .. r..� «i�i:i;.q ai jii? .i;'+.'1•ir.::�:x4. -�, ::..:. -•).Q1 >, <:.:; .:: ::.;::.i: <:;B . #:,:: < ::..:::::,! $e'.,,r1x., .. T1 . fC.Sf9D1.V$ PROPERTY MANAGER OR PROPERTY OWNER NAME: Ay QWI;I) t > `• OWNEWCOMPANY NAME CONTACT PERSON PHONE ��r�� <�..:-`••�;:f;`5 -:,,f ADDRESS ; s r . Fff -r.: %U %:: :,r� CITY STAT 4 Al ZIP CODE LEASEHOLDING TENANT N AME: R CN FO LtI12�.'l'fOl�f >! COMPANY NAME CONTACT PERSON PHONE ..... ............................... [NF04t.M'AIbN COMPANY NAME CONTACT PERSON LICENSE NO. ADDRESS PHONE <i CITY STATE ZIP CODE AKCIi.IrtET'% COMPANY NAME CONTACT PERSON LICENSE NO. i s' ADDRESS PHONE TYPEOF ?':r "' CHECK ONE ONLY STRUCT[JCt)z >'s< �_" 101 RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY 437 IND MANU /FACTORIES 434 DECKS PORCHES HOME ADDITIONS 4 37 IND /COMM OFFICES 438 GARAGES CARPORTS SHEDSI X 4 37 COtvlM RETAIL VALUATION OF WORK $ 4 ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE 5 5c1AN Not including land DESCRIPTION OF WORK: u) s/, 1-2-x o DOES THE WORK INCLUDE EQUIPMENT OR AREAS USED FOR FOOD HANDLING, STORAGE, AND /OR DISPENSING? TYPE OF USE:., y L, STRUCTURE J � DIMENSIONS Width Depth Height I Square liiotagc GROU1�iD` >'z >sa' COVERAGE,..,,'.:,, Dwelling Accessory Building 2nd Accessory Building ..... .. .. ... . ........ f . .:..:_ .:::. ::.::.:::...................... .,.:: P C G-7UNS ! COYNf. LO :.. SURVEY RAYMOND k PPASC14 GCI_D =N VAI LEf, N1rsI, LAND StiIt�r + 6017 ID11NU AYE_ N. ii�O�tS OPOOYLYN' PARK„ MAIN. Lt)!IIr. Ck : -. 1J•J• 4iar . rEXIS TERED UNDID t LAW-4 OF SrAtr OF 1'11.NNF;OTA MILAN. REC- -. WC. 6743 I,N:ENHUD ItT OMOINANCE : -.U' TY Or MINNEAPOLIS �141 ` . Brr,,d «ay Idin�c rp "!, • Minresn!n 55�2a , `.. 573 -ys12 INVOICE NO. I:t ^V;T ?ILL •• :I1I!I::IAI. 11 F. B. NO. - tt "llk�rftiruzr S CALE I" ... � U -- L'[hliJtl:S IRC:r•I �: ii i, ?.;[! ':�`.• '! :i, r ' :� O N 1. { t , z��``'`, ._. •,�a• ,• 31:y✓_.- ...._ •i 111 V` T o_IX. la t 1 i '•, X O W T.nt .r ' ' H. c •'•Ir - • i ' O:�'C.... aiy • r. ::h Cr l•I :!rw j. {,p:r) !•i�. r), .1 ,�t3v0 .. .. -k, , i tt^ i .:! { , P.al� ^•�: •..j .+�t.r to , .. ., .r •Jf 1r•4r• .h .; •.'I: ... ._ > • • • l - L �, •j `ll!llrYi r .. _ _ _. d .r•....• ;, C f 1 t rJn I q _. _ _ -. ...__•____.. _...... .. ---•. ._�_..... .. .+-... .n. .,;.. ... us. esN'.GTrr r -. • • 7• rs •�•r..:•.- . «r]n,...a�t-x*y:...a 1 - 3- >+mnsvrx+ . . +. -_•., �,.- ......._..�..... - ._... _ 1 City of Building and Community Standards Brooklyn Center www. ciryoJbrooklyncenter. orQ 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 -2199 Phone 763.569.3330 TTY/Voice 711 Fax 763.569.3360 4/22/2011 Debra A New * [Milli III IN 11111 IN 1111111 1 1— 0 1 8 3 0 3 5731 Camden Ave N Brooklyn Center MN 55430 RE: 5731 Camden Ave N Dear Property Owner: The Brooklyn Center City Council has adopted certain ordinances in an effort to keep our city clean and maintain good relations between neighbors. The following items covered by City ordinances have recently been noted at the address listed above. Your cooperation in taking care of the items would be appreciated and avoid the additional time and expense of formal actions by the City if the conditions are not corrected within the times set below. You have 30 days from the date of this letter to do the following: City code allowes for two accessory structures at residential property, including the detached /attached garage. Please remove one of your three accessory buildings. Section 12 -707, 35 -530 Accessory Buildings Doing your part to keep the City of Brooklyn Center a great place to live will be appreciated. If you have questions, please contact me at (763) 569 -3420. Sincerely, Y., � Jesse Anderson Code Enforcement Inspector atpof Administration Department X-Rrooklyh Cewter— www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 -2199 July 5, 2011 Carlein Coultier & Debra New 5731 Camden Ave N Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Sir /Madam: Re: 5731 Camden Ave N, Brooklyn Center, MN This letter is in response to your recent visit to the City Council open forum. It has been determine that the current ordinance does restrict your property from having the third accessory building at your property. Even if the Council decided to make changes to the ordinance in the future, you are still obligated to meet the requirements of the current ordinances. The following information is the City Attorney's response to your situation: 1. Grandfathering. ° Grandfathering" is a term applied to the right of a landowner to maintain a use or structure that was lawful when created despite the fact that it becomes unlawful by later adoption of a regulation by the government. Since the third accessory structure was not lawful when constructed, it is not a grandfathered structure. 2. Permit Association with Shed. The other question is whether the landowner is entitled to keep the second shed because the inspector did not notice the violation or did not enforce the code. The plan sheet accompanying the application for the second shed that would have been reviewed at City Hall did not show the first shed. Therefore, the permit was probably issued without knowledge on the part of the City that there was already a shed on the lot in addition to the garage, It is not known what happened when the inspector inspected the second shed. It may be that the inspector was only looking for building code complained and assuming that zoning code issues were considered when the permit was issued at city hall. It may be that the landowner was informed about the rules and told the inspector that the first shed was going to be removed. However, even if the city inspector simply missed the violation, that would not excuse the violation. City inspectors are not authorized to change the requirement of city code, either intentionally or by accident. When a building official misses a violation it sometimes results in a burden on the landowner that could have been avoided if the official had promptly caught the violation and enforced the provisions of city code. While that may be an unfortunate result, city inspection is intended to protect the public at large and . is not a guarantee to an individual landowner that everything about a use or structure is lawful. Compliance with city code is the obligation of the landowner, even if the landowner is ignorant of the law. If a third accessory structure on a property was not lawful when constructed, it is not made lawful by the approval of a building permit or approval of the structure by city staff. 5731 Camden Ave N July 5, 2011 j Page 2 i After further review of your property, there are some additional options that you may wish to consider in order to increase your storage options. Although you may only have two accessory structures including the attached garage, City ordinance allows the total footprint of your accessory building(s) to not exceed the footprint of your principal structure. The footprint of your house is 975 square feet; the attached garage is 528 square feet, leaving 447 square feet for the second accessory building. If you were to remove both sheds at the property, you could install a larger accessory building, with a footprint j up to 447 square feet. Since the structure would be more than 200 square feet, a building permit would be required. Please note that these dimensions must be verified through field measurements and other codes may apply. If you would like to explore this option further, I would suggest scheduling a meeting with the Planning Specialist and Building Official. Thank you for your time in addressing this matter. A City inspector will be inspecting your property on or after July 25, 2011 to verify compliance with City ordinances. Failure to comply with the City ordinance may result in enforcement actions such as an administrative penalty, county citation, or a formal complaint. We appreciate the frustration of thinking the shed was legal when you purchased the property. Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated. If you have questions, please call Jesse Anderson, Housing & Community Standards Supervisor, at 763- 569 -3420 or me at 763- 569 -3309. Sincerely, Vickie Schleuning Assistant City Manager /Director of Building & Community Standards Cc: Curt Boganey, City Manager Charlie LeFevere, City Attorney Jesse Anderson, Housing & Community Standards Supervisor Petition for Approval of a Variance Petitioning City of Brooklyn Center Planning Commission and City Council: Petitioning What V ariance from Section 12 -707, 35 -530 Action pefitioried for We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens who urge our city leaders to act now to issue a variance for the property described. The properly at 5731 Camden Ave N Brooklyn Center MN 55430 was build in 1976, including a 2 story single family home with a 2 car attached garage. That same year the original owners placed a standard size shed on the property. In 1996 the owners applied for a city permit to build a larger shed on the properly and that was approved. In July of 1998 the property was purchased by Debra New. At the time of purchase, the property had the existing home /attached garage and 2 outside sheds located in the back yard. On April 22, 2011 the city of Brooklyn Center Code Enforcement Inspector sighted the property as being in violation of city code: Section 12 -707, 35 -530 Accessory Buildings which states: City code allows for two accessory structures at residential property, including the detached/ attached garage. This violation came after the home was owned for almost 13 years. The property has not been changed in any way since the purchase date. We would ask that we be allowed to keep the extra shed. If you feel that the city of Brooklyn Center should approve this Variance, please sign the petition below acknowledging your approval. Printed Name : Signature Address Com ettit Date �� 572 Qxxri e . f vo r � �S/� o Sub �► 25 j Goa ��o� I,,._ 5 C- �•vv� Ave. �Daw 1 . 6 �a,,�,....-� ah ;ss 4 + ' ,f% y S /TozewS �.l i ✓�9 Z mde� /��e. Vo / s �✓e .,, Ali r r ,, �i �ars 71.;il /j a. M -, 1 1 + � � , r MOM R .nEd C Flom NMI y kkkk FINISH W/O , I'M / /i' i y ( �• • Pr`Int�dName Sign tune 1 ' Address Comment Date NEW\ CUM chi o fl ( i; s ,; o v cklw cue. 3 l 63 I Hi Ave . N. K 7 3 � 1 flow fit i out NOR c I LOGISMap Output Page 5$49 ' 583a seas f 5634 sass 5835 5821 f" 5827 7 5830 58M r z " j 5810 5821 ,- 5824 f °5815 SBf9 V.. • . V ui:. $.. 5813 � 3 4 ,.5810 5815' '5812. 5807 } , 5861 5801 5800.. 910 700 630 5�1 � 1 � J+. 58TH AVE N 1 - 5959 5750 ST3t �•'lN". ,;. c � x � € !w- .a 701' 621 ' P 5749 -< 4 ,z 22 e IU 909 573' 5730. P y 6141 5732 Slat 51YU 4 .. M 1 , m a a• , 22 sD13 s7u xs� 9f6. 5707 _ 9906 816 ;. 5 +0� y > 57TH AVE N. {` ° �Y 907' 833 827 . � � • � 5642 5647.. • G 4 � �C ,.: � £ n. n t' 5638. 5631 G : 5630 3631 5632 5837 5630.. 5525 5624 3625 5624. Alma gel w,n McMls Cq>p�gercrEOGlS G152015 � ,°5619,, ifila � 5621 � a Highlighted properties indicate those neighboring homeowners who support the Applicant's variance request. http:H gis. logis. org/ LOGIS_ ArcIMS/ ims? ServiceName= bc_ logismap _ovsde &ClientVersion =4.0 &Form = True &Encode= False[8 /5/2011 1:26:05 PM]